BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Arbuthnot v Fisher Metal Engineering LLP Fisher Metal Engineering LLP [2011] NIIT 00283_11IT (13 April 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/00283_11IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 283_11IT, [2011] NIIT 00283_11IT |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 2501/10
283/11
CLAIMANT: Dorothy Arbuthnot
RESPONDENT: Fisher Metal Engineering LLP
DECISION
(A) This claimant’s claim in respect of guarantee pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £215 in respect of guarantee pay.
(B) The claimant’s claim in respect of holiday pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £317 in respect of holiday pay.
(C) The claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay is well-founded and it is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the claimant the sum of £1,824 in respect of notice pay.
(D) The claimant’s claim in respect of a redundancy payment is well-founded and it is declared that the claimant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment of £11,400 from the respondent.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr Paul Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant as self-represented.
There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
REASONS
1. The claimant is one of a group of former employees who are currently suing the respondent in respect of employment-related debts. That group of claimants includes the following:
(1) Joseph David Rice
(2) Sandra Elliott
(3) Dorothy Arbuthnot
(4) David Jackson
2. All of the people mentioned above gave evidence in this claimant’s case.
3. At the end of the hearing of this case, I announced my decision in this case. I also gave oral reasons, at that time, for that decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
4. On the basis of the evidence which I received, I was satisfied as to the following.
5. This claimant had been employed by the respondent. She must be treated as having been dismissed, because the employer, over a lengthy period and without consultation or discussion with the claimant, failed to make any salary payments to the claimant. (See Powell v Duffryn Ltd v House [1974] ICR 123, at 128).
6. I am satisfied that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy.
7. I am satisfied that this claimant was due guarantee pay of the amount specified above.
8. I am satisfied that this claimant was entitled to net holiday pay of the amount specified above.
9. I am satisfied that this claimant was entitled to 12 weeks’ notice of dismissal, or to pay in lieu of notice, and that this claimant received no such notice. I am satisfied that, as a result of that lack of notice, the claimant’s net losses (based on the claimant’s net pay while in the respondent’s employment, minus both the amount of any income received - during the notice period - in respect of “other” employment, and minus also the amount of any social security payments received, or receivable, by the claimant during the notice period) was as specified above.
10. I am satisfied that no redundancy payment was made to this claimant. I have calculated this claimant’s redundancy pay entitlement, having noted the claimant’s age at date of dismissal, length of service, and gross weekly pay. Having done so, I am satisfied that this claimant is entitled to the amount of redundancy pay specified above.
11. In calculating the claimant’s notice pay and redundancy pay entitlements, I have taken full account of the claimant’s entire relevant length of service, including her service with Tubular Furniture Ltd and with Fisher Metal Engineering Ltd. (I am satisfied that those firms, respectively, were transferors, under TUPE transfers, of entities to which the claimant was assigned).
12. This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 23 March 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: